Recent Profile Visitors

My understanding of the process is that compassionate grounds is a fairly low bar, it is really difficult for them to weigh compassion. Personally, I was homesick and wanted to be closer to family.
I was also previously accepted to UBC and had very good law school grades. From talking with others that I knew at the time and during orientation, most students who were successful transfer applicants were quite strong law students.

Cursory research says not so in BC/Ontario, the only requirement is to disclose latent defects that render the property uninhabitable or dangerous (e.g. Nixon v. MacIver, 2016 BCCA 8 ). It is part of the common property disclosure statement that the BC realtor's put out but I am not sure the wording of that form captures personal use plants.
To be frank, I'd parse the words very closely before disclosing. You need a good lawyer in this situation.

The areas you describe are done by some of the best litigators in the country, I would not expect to be able to get the best work with average grades. You can be reasonably confident with above average and good softs, or exceptional grades.

Where did you get this idea? It is not true. It is extremely difficult to move into areas dominated by prestigious firms unless you were already competitive for these firms.
Articling students are not that useful to most firms because they are inexperienced not because of constraints imposed by the law society.

From my understanding of the Queen's curve, you are an average, maybe slightly above average, student. You'll get some interviews, but after that, your grades won't make much of a difference either way.

I agree with MP, undergrad is a really great time in your life.
I would probably not want to work with someone that was so laser-focused rushing into their career. I doubt I am alone, so even if people like me didn't value the undergrad education (which, frankly, I do), it would hurt your employment prospects.

It is really strange to exclude "big law" practices since big firms practice areas are incredibly broad. Take tax for example, it is pretty classicly one area that all large firms have, and yet the issues that large firms face are often the same as small firms. The only difference tends to be dollar amounts mean that you can actually dispute things.

This isn't undergrad, pretty much every law student I knew did basically everything you suggested. There are no guarantees and getting above average requires something more than doing what everyone else is doing...

Even if we were to accept the premise that Ryerson graduates would be subpar -- which I don't accept, there are large advantages to a school being in Toronto -- arguing over competency in the abstract seems to ignore the fact that most Canadians struggle to afford legal services.
It doesn't really matter where someone goes to school and it doesn't matter that UofT graduates are likely to be better than Ryerson graduates. All that matters is that the graduates meet the baseline of competence.
Let the employment market figure the rest out. The most competitive practice areas can easily determine competence. Areas, where the public has difficulty, are plagued by lack of legal advice, to the point that competence is pretty much a moot point.
The only real criticism against Ryerson, in my mind, is that we as a society should focus our resources on a limited number of schools to ensure that legal graduates can serve normal Canadians. But the fact is that the government isn't subsidizing Ryerson, so it isn't squandering scarce resources.

Providence is to lawstudents.ca what Cersei is to Game of Thrones.
I personally have never felt comfortable at interviews but eventually landed at a great firm for articles. You don't need to compete with everyone, just keep doing your best.